FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Audit Report
Do not release outside the Department of the Navy or post on non-NAVAUDSVC Web sites without prior approval of the Auditor General of the Navy
Naval Pilot and Naval Flight
Officer Diversity
N2012-0001
19 October 2011
Naval Audit Service
This report contains information exempt from release under the
Freedom of Information Act. Exemption (b)(6) applies.
Obtaining
Additional Copies
Providing Suggestions
for Future Audits
To obtain additional copies of this report, please use
the following contact information:
To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, please
use the following contact information:
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Mail:
(202) 433-5757
(202) 433-5921
Naval Audit Service
Attn: FOIA
1006 Beatty Place SE
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5005
Phone:
Fax:
E-mail:
Mail:
(202) 433-5840 (DSN 288)
(202) 433-5921
Naval Audit Service
Attn: Audit Requests
1006 Beatty Place SE
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5005
Naval Audit Service Web Site
To find out more about the Naval Audit Service, including general background, and guidance on what
clients can expect when they become involved in research or an audit, visit our Web site at:
http://secnavportal.donhq.navy.mil/navalauditservices
7510
N2010-NFO000-0145
19 Oct 11
MEMORANDUM FOR DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
(TOTAL FORCE)
Subj: NAVAL PILOT AND NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
(AUDIT REPORT N2012-0001)
Ref: (a) NAVAUDSVC memo 7510 N2010-NFO000-0145.000, dated 12 Aug 2010
(b) SECNAV Instruction 7510.7F, “Department of the Navy Internal Audit”
1. The report provides results of the subject audit announced in reference (a).
Section A of this report provides our findings and recommendations, summarized
management responses, and our comments on the responses. Section B provides the
status of the recommendations. The full text of the management responses are in the
appendix.
2. The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) concurred with
Recommendations 1-6, and planned actions meet the intent of the recommendations.
The recommendations are considered open pending completion of agreed-to actions.
3. Management should provide a written status report on the recommendations within 30
days after target completion dates. Please direct any correspondence regarding this audit
report to the Assistant Auditor General for Manpower and Reserve Affairs Audits,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, by e-mail at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX,with a copy to the
Director, Policy and Oversight, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Please
submit correspondence in electronic format (Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat file), and
ensure that it is on letterhead and includes a scanned signature.
4. Any requests for this report under the Freedom of Information Act must be approved
by the Auditor General of the Navy as required by reference (b). This audit report is also
subject to followup in accordance with reference (b).
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY NAVAL AUDIT SERVICE 1006 BEATTY PLACE SE
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DC 20374-5005
FOIA (b)(6)
Subj: NAVAL PILOT AND NAVAL FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
(AUDIT REPORT N2012-0001)
. . . . . . . . .
5. We appreciate the cooperation and courtesies extended to our auditors.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Assistant Auditor General
Manpower and Reserve Affairs Audits
Copy to:
UNSECNAV
OGC
DCMO
ASSTSECNAV FMC
ASSTSECNAV FMC (FMO)
ASSTSECNAV IE
ASSTSECNAV MRA
ASSTSECNAV RDA
CNO (DNS-33, N4B, N40, N41)
VCNO
CMC (RFR, ACMC)
DON CIO
CNAF
COMFLTFORCOM (N00IGA)
COMPACFLT (N00IGA)
NETC (N00GA)
CNATRA (00IG)
CNRC (N00IG)
USNA
NAVINSGEN (NAVIG-4) AFAA/DO
FOIA (b)(6)
i
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1
Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1 Reason for Audit ............................................................................................................... 1 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 1 Noteworthy Accomplishments ......................................................................................... 2
Aviation Selection Test Battery Enhanced .................................................................... 2 Introductory Flight Screening ....................................................................................... 2 Commander, Naval Air Forces Diversity Outreach ...................................................... 2 Increased Enrollments ................................................................................................... 2
Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act ...................................................................... 3 Corrective Actions ............................................................................................................ 3
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS ......... 5
Finding: Impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Diversity ..................................... 5 Synopsis ............................................................................................................................ 5 Discussion of Details ........................................................................................................ 5
Background ................................................................................................................... 5 Aviation Pipeline ........................................................................................................ 5
Pertinent Guidance ........................................................................................................ 6 Audit Results .................................................................................................................... 7
Projected Diversity for Naval Pilots/Flight Officers ..................................................... 7 Detailed Charts of Impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Diversity at
Commissioning Sources and Chief of Naval Air Training ......................................... 10 Asian/Pacific Islander Impediments to Diversity ........................................................ 13 Hispanic Impediments to Diversity ............................................................................. 14 Chief of Naval Air Training Performance ................................................................... 15
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 15
SECTION B: STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 18
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 20 Impediments to Diversity ....................................................................................................... 20
Assumptions Made for Commissioning Source Estimates ................................................. 20 Assumptions Made for Flight Training Estimates .............................................................. 21
Other Audit Steps Performed ................................................................................................. 22
EXHIBIT B: CHIEF OF NAVAL AIR TRAINING SELECTION STANDARDS .............. 24
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ii
EXHIBIT C: ACTIVITIES VISITED AND/OR CONTACTED ......................................... 25
APPENDIX: MANAGEMENT RESPONSE FROM DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS (TOTAL FORCE) .................................................................................. 26
1
Executive Summary
Overview
The Chief of Naval Operations has placed an emphasis on the diversity of the Navy. He
explained in his 2011 Diversity Policy that the Navy must reflect the diversity of the
nation in order to attract a diversity of thoughts, ideas, and competencies.
The Naval Pilot and Naval Flight Officer (hereafter referred to as Naval Pilot/Flight
Officer) communities represent a large portion of the commissioned officers in the Navy.
Over 25 percent of newly commissioned officers in the Navy are assigned to Naval
Pilot/Flight Officer training, and over 27 percent of Navy Flag Officers are promoted
from the aviation community.
We conducted the audit during the period of 10 August 2010 through August 2011. We
briefed the audit finding and recommendations to the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
(Total Force) on 7 April 2011. We also provided him with a Naval Audit Service
information package containing much of the information in this report on 20 May 2011.
Reason for Audit
The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) requested this audit. He expressed
an interest in the diversity of the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities in general, and
specifically with the diversity of the Jet Pilot/Flight Officer communities. The objective
of this audit was to verify that the processes that lead to the selection and assignment of
Naval Pilots/Flight Officers support diversity.
Conclusions
We determined that despite recent increases in minority enrollments at the United States
Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps, new Naval Pilot/Flight
Officer accessions are not on track to reflect the diversity of the nation. This condition
existed because compared to their classmates, certain minority groups: 1) enrolled into
commissioning sources at a low rate, 2) graduated from commissioning sources at a low
rate, 3) preferred Naval Pilot/Flight Officer careers at a low rate, 4) were selected as
Naval Pilot/Flight Officers at a low rate, and 5) averaged lower scores during flight
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2
training.1 Implementation of our recommended Corrective Actions (page 3) and
continuation of Noteworthy Accomplishments (page 2) should enable new Naval
Pilot/Flight Officer accessions to more closely reflect the diversity of the nation.
Noteworthy Accomplishments
Aviation Selection Test Battery Enhanced
The Aviation Selection Test Battery is a selection tool given to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer
candidates that predicts success in flight training. The Bureau of Medicine and Surgery
is in the process of upgrading the test to include testing for psychomotor skills,
personality measures, and a biographical inventory with response verification. These
enhancements are expected to reduce group differences in test performance, and better
predict success in flight training. According to officials at the Bureau of Medicine and
Surgery, this should help increase diverse enrollments in flight training.
Introductory Flight Screening
Introductory Flight Screening provides student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers with no
previous flight experience an opportunity to receive basic flight training in civilian
aircraft prior to beginning flight training. Chief of Naval Air Training officials report
that since diverse student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers are less likely to enroll at Chief of
Naval Air Training with previous flight experience, Introductory Flight Screening will
help to “level the playing field” and reduce the performance gap between minority and
majority students.
Commander, Naval Air Forces Diversity Outreach
Beginning in 2009, Commander, Naval Air Forces Diversity office has committed a
post-command-tour officer to place a full-time focus on diversity within Naval Aviation.
They have focused on outreach to the community by building relationships with schools,
athletic programs, flying clubs and other organizations in order to reach more students.
They also coordinate with squadrons to make aircraft and pilots available to potential
students.
Increased Enrollments
Both the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps and United States Naval Academy have
had an increase in diverse enrollments. The increased diverse enrollments and projected
resulting Naval Pilot/Flight Officer accessions are described in the body of this report.
1Not all of the five situations applied to every group. See the Audit Results for a breakdown.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act
The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, as codified in Title 31, United
States Code, requires each Federal agency head to annually certify the effectiveness of
the agency’s internal and accounting system controls. In our opinion, the conditions
noted in this report do not warrant reporting in the Auditor General’s annual FMFIA
memorandum identifying management control weaknesses to the Secretary of the Navy.
Corrective Actions
We recommend that Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) assess the reasons
that when compared to their classmates:
African Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders enroll at the United States Naval
Academy at low rates,
African American officer candidates have high attrition at the United States Naval
Academy,
African American, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic officer candidates at the
United States Naval Academy prefer careers in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer
communities at low rates,
Asian/Pacific Islanders enroll at Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps at a low
rate,
African American and Asian/Pacific Islander officer candidates in the Naval
Reserve Officers Training Corps prefer careers in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer
communities at low rates,
African American officer candidates in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps,
who prefer Naval Pilot/Flight Officer careers, are selected for these careers at low
rates,
African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Hispanics enroll to be
commissioned through Officer Candidate School as Naval Pilots/Flight Officers at
low rates, and
African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic student Naval
Pilots/Flight Officers average low scores during flight training.
We also recommended that the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) develop
a plan of action and milestones to address the causes of the above.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
The Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) concurred with Recommendations
1-6, and planned actions meet the intent of the recommendations. The recommendations
are considered open pending completion of agreed-to actions.
5
Section A:
Finding, Recommendations, and
Corrective Actions
Finding: Impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Diversity
Synopsis
The Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities, a significant portion of the Navy’s
commissioned officers, are not on track to reflect the diversity of the nation. In his 2011
Diversity Policy, The Chief of Naval Operations states that we “must…build a Navy that
always reflects our Country’s make up.” Low enrollment, high attrition, low preference,
and low selection at commissioning sources for certain minority groups, and low
performance in flight training, are contributing to the lack of diversity.
If this trend continues, future senior leadership in the aviation community will not reflect
the diversity of the nation.
Discussion of Details
Background
Aviation Pipeline
Naval Pilots/Flight Officers are first commissioned at one of the commissioning sources:
the United States Naval Academy, Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps, or Officer
Candidate School. At the Naval Academy and the Naval Reserve Officers Training
Corps, officer candidates select their community prior to graduation, and are placed in a
community based on this selection and the needs of the Navy. At Officer Candidate
School, officer candidates select a community prior to enrollment.
Student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers from all three commissioning sources then attend
Introductory Flight Screening2 and Naval Aviation Fundamentals, and are sent to the
Chief of Naval Air Training for flight school. The Chief of Naval Air Training oversees
three phases of training: primary, intermediate, and advanced training. Naval Pilots
choose their pipeline at the end of primary training, while Naval Flight Officers choose
their pipeline at the end of primary and intermediate training.
2 Students may be exempt from Introductory Flight Screening if they have previous flight experience.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
6
Figure A. Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Pipeline
Pertinent Guidance
According to the Chief of Naval Operations 2011 Diversity Policy:
“We must not be locked in time. As leaders, we must anticipate and
embrace the demographic changes of tomorrow, and build a Navy that
always reflects our Country’s make up. We must lead in ways that will
continue to draw men and women to service to our Country and to our
Navy.”
The U.S. Census Bureau counts every resident in the United States every 10 years. In
order to establish criteria to compare Naval Pilot/Flight Officer diversity, we obtained
2010 U.S. Census statistics.
However, since Naval Pilots/Flight Officers are commissioned officers, we determined
that using data relating to U.S. college graduates would provide a better picture of the
recruiting pool. Therefore, we obtained 2009 Department of Education statistics for U.S.
college graduates, the most recent data available, and used this as our criteria for
comparing Naval Pilot/Flight Officer accessions to the diversity of the country.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
7
Figure B. Diversity Statistics Used to Identify Impediments
Race/Ethnicity Census 2010 College
Graduates 2009
Navy Officers
September 2009
Total Population 308,745,538 1,601,368 52,031
Caucasian 72.4% 71.5% 81.4%
African American (AA) 12.6% 9.8% 8.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander (API) 5.0% 7.0% 4.3%
Other/Multiracial 10.0% 3.7% 6.1%
Hispanic (HIS)3 16.3% 8.1% 6.0%
Audit Results
Projected Diversity for Naval Pilots/Flight Officers4
We determined that despite recent increases in minority enrollments at the Naval
Academy and in the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps, new Naval Pilot/Flight
Officer accessions will not reflect the diversity of the United States. Building “a Navy
that always reflects our Country’s makeup” was stated in the 2011 Chief of Naval
Operations Diversity policy. We estimated that African American officers from the
commissioning Class of 2013 will represent 4.2 percent of Naval Pilot/Flight Officer
advanced training graduates, and 2.8 percent of jet graduates (see Figure C). This is far
below the 2009 African American college graduate percentage of 9.8 percent. Our
analysis showed similar results for Asian/Pacific Islander officers (2.3 percent advanced
training graduates/1 percent jet graduates/7 percent college graduates) and Hispanic
officers (7.2 percent advanced training graduates/6.3 percent jet graduates/8.1 percent
college graduates).
3 Hispanic is considered an ethnicity. For Census and Navy statistics, personnel select a race and then answer yes or no for Hispanic
ethnicity. Therefore, each Hispanic is also identified with a race, and those percentages will total over 100 percent. 4 About 70 percent of aviation admirals were from the jet community. In addition to measuring the diversity of the overall Naval
Pilot/Flight Officer advanced flight training graduates, we measured the Jet Pilot/ Flight Officer advanced flight training graduates.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
8
Figure C. Commissioning: Class of 2013
To arrive at our estimates, we calculated diversity percentages at various points in the
commissioning and Chief of Naval Air Training flight training processes, beginning with
enrollment at the commissioning source and continuing through graduation from the
Chief of Naval Air Training course. We analyzed student data5 from commissioning
sources and the Chief of Naval Air Training for the period 2006 to 2010.
5 Student data included name, race, ethnicity, performance measures, training dates, and other data.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
9
Impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Diversity
We identified five primary impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer diversity. Low
enrollment, high attrition, low preference, and low selection for these career paths were
the primary impediments at the commissioning sources.6 Low performance was the
primary impediment at the Chief of Naval Air Training. See Figure D.
Figure D. Impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Diversity
Impediments Naval Academy
Navy Reserve
Officers Training
Corps
Officer Candidate
School
AA API HIS AA API HIS AA API HIS
Low Enrollment X X X X X X
High Attrition X
Low Preference X X X X X N/A7 N/A N/A
Low Selection X N/A N/A N/A
Impediments
Chief of Naval Air
Training
AA API HIS
Low Performance X X X
6Not all impediments to diversity applied to every group.
7 For Officer Candidate School, candidates apply for a career in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities prior to being accepted. Therefore,
no preference or selection of career choices is made while at the school.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
10
Detailed Charts of Impediments to Naval Pilot/Flight Officer Diversity at
Commissioning Sources and Chief of Naval Air Training
The following sections provide separate detailed analysis for each of the three diversity
groups we analyzed. Figures F, H, and J show the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer pipeline
from commissioning source enrollments to aviation selection by racial/ethnic groups.
Figures G, I, and K display diversity levels at various stages in the Chief of Naval Air
Training process based on commissioning source aviation selection numbers. Figure E
provides the information necessary to interpret the commissioning source charts that
follow.
Figure E. Interpreting Commissioning Source Charts
Naval
Academy/Reserve
Officer Training
Corps/Officer
Candidate School
Enrollment – group’s
percentage of total
enrollments and
number
Graduation – group’s
percentage of total
graduations and
number
Aviation Preference –
group’s percentage of
total first choice Naval
Pilot/Flight Officer
and number
Aviation Selection –
group’s percentage of
total selected for
Naval Pilot/Flight
Officer and number
Class of 2010 Actual Actual Actual Actual
Projections Class of
2013
Actual for Class of
2013
Projection based on
actual 2010 graduations
Projection based on
actual 2010 aviation
preferences
Projection based on
actual 2010 aviation
selection
Projections with no
attrition gap
Actual for Class of
2013
Projection assumes
group attrites at same rate as entire class
Projection based on
actual 2010 aviation preferences
Projection based on
actual 2010 aviation selection
Projections with no
preference gap
Actual for Class of
2013
Projection based on
actual 2010 graduations
Projection assumes
group prefers at same
rate as entire class
Projection based on
actual 2010 aviation
selection
Projections with no
selection gap
Actual for Class of
2013
Projection based on
actual 2010 graduations
Projection based on
actual 2010 aviation preferences
Projection assumes
group selects at same rate as entire class
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
11
African American Impediments to Diversity
Impediments to diversity are determined by comparing diversity representation at each
milestone to diversity representation at previous milestones,8 with the expectation that the
percentages should remain consistent at each milestone. For example, as established in
Figure B, African Americans represent 9.8 percent of 2009 college graduates. In the
Naval Academy’s Class of 2013, 99 African American enrollments represent 7.9 percent
of the class (see Figure F). The decrease from 9.8 to 7.9 percent is greater than one
percent, which we defined as an impediment to increasing or maintaining diversity, and is
highlighted in red. The 65 African Americans projected to graduate would represent
6.2 percent of the class. The decrease from 7.9 to 6.2 percent is greater than our one
percent threshold; therefore, this attrition is also considered an impediment and is
highlighted in red. Figures H and J should also be read in this manner.
“Projections with no attrition gap”9 describes the impact of the attrition impediment to
diversity by showing what the diversity levels would be if the impediment did not exist.
We assumed that 7.9 percent representation at enrollment is maintained at graduation.
After applying to the remaining milestones, the result is an increase from 12 African
Americans (representing 3.9 percent of aviation selections) to 15 African Americans
(representing 5 percent of these selections).
Figure F. African American Commissioning Sources
United States Naval Academy Enrollment Graduation Aviation
Preference
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 4.6% 56 3.6% 37 2.1% 7 2.3% 7
Projections Class of 2013 7.9% 99 6.2% 65 3.6% 12 3.9% 12
Projections no attrition gap 7.9% 99 7.9% 83 4.6% 15 5.0% 15
Projections no preference gap 7.9% 99 6.2% 65 6.2% 21 6.8% 21
Projections no attr, no pref gap 7.9% 99 7.9% 83 7.9% 27 8.6% 27
Naval Reserve Officers
Training Corps Enrollment Graduation
10
Aviation
Preference
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 2.8% 21 4.1% 30 3.0% 9 2.7% 7
Projections Class of 2013 12.0% 146 17.6% 209 13.0% 62 11.5% 48
Projections no preference gap 12.0% 146 17.6% 209 17.6% 85 15.7% 66
Projections no selection gap 12.0% 146 17.6% 209 13.0% 62 13.0% 55
Projections no pref, no selec
gap 12.0% 146 17.6% 209 17.6% 85 17.6% 74
Officer Candidate School11
Aviation
Enrollment
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 1.9% 6 1.7% 5
8 Except for enrollments, which are compared to the 2009 college graduates’ representation.
9 These projections are only displayed for impediments identified as meeting the one percent threshold. For example, African Americans have
an attrition impediment at the Naval Academy, but not at the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps. 10
Due to the way the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps keeps student data, we could not compare enrollments to graduations by class
year. Therefore we used a separate analysis to measure attrition. Details can be found in Exhibit A, Scope and Methodology. 11
Officer Candidate School is not a 4 year program. Class of 2010 is most recent data available and is used for all projections.
7+7+5=19 See Figure G
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
12
The aviation selections from Figure F are totaled to give Chief of Naval Air Training
enrollments in Figure G.12
The 34 projected African American advanced graduates in
2013 will represent 4.2 percent of all advanced graduates, and the 6 projected African
American Jet graduates will represent 2.8 percent of all Jet graduates (Jet graduates are a
subset of advanced graduates). Figures I and K should also be read in this manner.
Figure G. African American (Chief of Naval Air Training)
Chief of Naval Air Training Enrollment NAF
Graduation
Primary
Graduation
Advanced
Graduation
Jet
Graduation
Class of 201013
2.2% 19 1.3% 11 1.4% 11 1.4% 10 1.0% 2
Projections Class of 2013 6.5% 66 3.8% 38 4.2% 38 4.2% 34 2.8% 6
Projections no USNA14
attrition
gap 6.8% 69 4.0% 40 4.4% 40 4.4% 36 2.9% 7
Projections no NROTC,15
USNA
pref 9.0% 92 5.3% 53 5.8% 53 5.9% 48 3.9% 9
Projections no NROTC selection 7.0% 72 4.2% 41 4.6% 41 4.6% 38 3.0% 7
Projections USNA no attr- nopref,
NROTC no pref-no selection 10.4% 106 6.2% 61 6.7% 61 6.7% 56 4.5% 11
12
Numbers may not add up due to rounding. 13
Class of 2010 refers to students from the commissioning sources’ Class of 2010 who enrolled in Chief of Naval Air Training around that
time. This also applies to Projection Class of 2013, and to both classes in Figures I and K. 14
USNA- United States Naval Academy 15
NROTC- Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
13
Asian/Pacific Islander Impediments to Diversity
Figure H. Asian/Pacific Islander Commissioning Sources
United States Naval Academy Enrollment Graduation Aviation
Preference
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 2.6% 32 2.2% 23 1.2% 4 1.3% 4
Projections Class of 2013 4.6% 58 4.0% 41 2.1% 7 2.3% 7
Projections no preference gap 4.6% 58 4.0% 41 4.0% 13 4.3% 13
Naval Reserve Officers
Training Corps Enrollment Graduation
Aviation
Preference
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 6.1% 45 6.3% 46 4.4% 13 3.9% 10
Projections Class of 2013 4.5% 55 4.7% 55 3.3% 15 2.9% 12
Projections no preference gap 4.5% 55 4.7% 55 4.7% 22 4.1% 17
Officer Candidate School Aviation
Enrollment
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 2.5% 8 2.4% 7
Figure I. Asian/Pacific Islander (Chief of Naval Air Training)
Chief of Naval Air Training Enrollment NAF
Graduation
Primary
Graduation
Advanced
Graduation
Jet
Graduation
Class of 2010 2.5% 21 2.5% 21 2.3% 18 2.2% 15 1.0% 2
Projections Class of 2013 2.6% 26 2.6% 26 2.5% 22 2.3% 18 1.0% 2
Projections no USNA, NROTC16
pref 3.7% 38 3.8% 38 3.6% 32 3.3% 27 1.5% 3
16
USNA- United States Naval Academy, NROTC- Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps
4+10+7=21 See Figure I
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
14
Hispanic Impediments to Diversity
Figure J. Hispanic Commissioning Sources United States Naval
Academy Enrollment Graduation
Aviation
Preference
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 11.0% 134 10.9% 111 9.6% 32 9.8% 30
Projections Class of 2013 14.1% 177 14.0% 146 12.3% 42 12.6% 39
Projections no pref gap 14.1% 177 14.0% 146 14.0% 47 14.3% 44
Naval Reserve Officers
Training Corps Enrollment Graduation
Aviation
Preference
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 4.7% 34 5.8% 42 7.4% 22 7.7% 20
Projections Class of 2013 8.9% 108 11.0% 130 14.1% 68 14.6% 62
Officer Candidate School Aviation
Enrollment
Aviation
Selection
Class of 2010 6.2% 20 6.2% 18
Figure K. Hispanic (Chief of Naval Air Training) Chief of Naval Air
Training Enrollment
NAF
Graduation
Primary
Graduation
Advanced
Graduation
Jet
Graduation
Class of 2010 8.0% 68 4.8% 40 4.8% 37 4.9% 34 4.3% 9
Projections Class of 2013 11.6% 119 7.0% 70 7.1% 65 7.2% 59 6.3% 15
Projections no USNA,
NROTC17
pref 12.2% 124 7.3% 73 7.4% 68 7.5% 62 6.6% 16
17
USNA- United States Naval Academy, NROTC- Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps.
30+20+18=68 See Figure K
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
15
Chief of Naval Air Training Performance
Student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers’ performance is measured using a Navy standard
score. To be eligible for the jet training pipeline, a student Naval Pilot must receive a
score of 50 or above. We reviewed the flight training performance standards and found
that they appeared objective.18
However, we determined that African American,
Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic students’ average Navy standard scores were lower
than Caucasians. These lower scores negatively affected the number from each minority
group entering the jet pipeline. The low representation of African Americans,
Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics among jet graduates is shown in the “Jet
Graduation” numbers in Figures G, I, and K.
Figure L. 5-Year Average Navy Standard Scores by Racial Group
Race Score
African
American
47.6
Asian/Pacific
Islander
44.1
Caucasian 50.7
Hispanic 45.6
For the Naval Flight Officer career path, students do not need to obtain a specific score to
be eligible for the jet training pipeline; however, the students must obtain a Navy
standard score of 35 to continue training.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force):
Recommendation 1. For the U.S. Naval Academy, determine the reasons why:
a. African Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders enroll at low rates;
b. African American officer candidates have high attrition; and
c. African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic officer candidates
prefer careers in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities at low rates.
18
See Exhibit C for details.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
16
Recommendation 2. For Reserve Officers Training Corps, determine the reasons why:
a. Asian/Pacific Islanders enroll at a low rate;
b. African American and Asian/Pacific Islander officer candidates prefer careers
in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities at low rates; and
c. Enrolled African American officer candidates who prefer Naval Pilot/Flight
Officer careers are selected at a low rate.
Recommendation 3. For Officer Candidate School, determine the reasons why African
Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics enroll to be commissioned as Naval
Pilots/Flight Officers at low rates.
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) Response to Recommendations
1, 2, and 3. Concur, and offer the following comments: A review of the “reasons
why” certain groups enroll at low rates, or have higher attrition, may identify issues
beyond or outside Navy control. The Diversity Policy office, OPNAV N134, is
tasked with supporting the reviews by USNA and NSTC, and coordinating
recommendations to Navy leadership on any required follow-on actions. Target
completion date is 7 October 2012.
Naval Audit Service comments on Responses to Recommendations 1, 2 and 3.
Actions planned by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) meet the
intent of the recommendations, which are considered open pending completion of
agreed-upon actions.
Recommendation 4. For Chief of Naval Air Training, coordinate with Commander,
Naval Air Forces as appropriate and determine the reasons why African American,
Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers average low
scores during flight training.
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) Response to Recommendation 4.
Concur. This recommendation is for DCNO (N1) to task CNATRA to determine “the
reasons why” certain diverse candidates average low scores during flight training.
More review is required to ascertain the current picture with regard to Hispanic
candidates, but DCNO (N1) does not dispute the overall findings of the audit. We
concur with this recommendation with the understanding that the performance
standards used in the selection and training of aviation candidates are valid and
proven to predict adequate performance in Fleet operations. The focus of this effort
must be identification of systemic reasons for variance in performance, vice
modification of proven performance standards. Target completion date is
7 October 2012.
SECTION A: FINDING, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FINDING: IMPEDIMENTS TO NAVAL PILOT/FLIGHT OFFICER DIVERSITY
17
Naval Audit Service comments on Responses to Recommendations 4. Actions
planned by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) meet the intent of
the recommendation, which is considered open pending completion of agreed-
upon actions. It should be noted that this recommendation does not require
DCNO (N1) to task CNATRA, but to determine the reasons “in coordination”
with Commander, Naval Air Forces. Also, this audit did not determine whether
“the performance standards used in the selection and training of aviation
candidates are valid and proven to predict adequate performance in Fleet
operations.” The audit did, however, determine that the standards appeared to be
objective.
Recommendation 5. Develop a plan of action for implementation of corrective actions
to address each of the reasons identified in Recommendations 1-4. Ensure the plan
includes implementation dates for each action.
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) Response to Recommendation 5.
Concur. DCNO (N1) concurs with Recommendation 5. Target completion date is
7 October 2012.
Naval Audit Service comments on Responses to Recommendations 5. Actions
planned by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) meet the intent of
the recommendation, which is considered open pending completion of agree-upon
actions.
Recommendation 6. Establish metrics to monitor and track progress of enrollment,
graduation, preference, selection, and performance relative to Recommendations 1-4.
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) Response to Recommendation 6.
Concur. DCNO (N1) concurs with Recommendation 6. Target completion date is 07
October 2012.
Naval Audit Service comments on Responses to Recommendations 6. Actions
planned by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force) meet the intent of
the recommendation, which is considered open pending completion of agree-upon
actions.
18
Section B:
Status of Recommendations
Recommendations
Finding19
Rec. No.
Page No.
Subject Status20
Action
Command
Target or Actual
Completion Date
Interim
Target Completion
Date21
1 1 15 For the U.S. Naval Academy, determine the reasons why:
a. African Americans and Asian/Pacific Islanders enroll at low rates;
b. African American officer candidates have high attrition; and
c. African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic officer candidates prefer careers in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities at low rates
O Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Total Force)
10/7/2012
1 2 16 For Reserve Officer Training Corps, determine the reasons why:
a. Asian/Pacific Islanders enroll at a low rate;
b. African American and Asian/Pacific Islander officer candidates prefer careers in the Naval Pilot/Flight Officer communities at low rates; and
c. Enrolled African American officer candidates, who prefer Naval Pilot/Flight Officer careers, are selected at a low rate.
O Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Total Force)
10/7/2012
1 3 16 For Officer Candidate School, determine the reasons why African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics enroll to be commissioned as Naval Pilots/Flight Officers at low rates.
O Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Total Force)
10/7/2012
1 4 16 For Chief of Naval Air Training, coordinate with Commander, Naval Air Forces as appropriate and determine the reasons why African American, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic student Naval Pilots/Flight Officers average low scores during flight training.
O Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Total Force)
10/7/2012
19
/ + = Indicates repeat finding. 20
/ O = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions; C = Recommendation is closed with all action completed; U = Recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress. 21
If applicable.
SECTION B: STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
19
Recommendations
Finding19
Rec. No.
Page No.
Subject Status20
Action
Command
Target or Actual
Completion Date
Interim
Target Completion
Date21
1 5 17 Develop a plan of action for implementation of corrective actions to address each of the reasons identified in Recommendations 1-4. Ensure the plan includes implementation dates for each action.
O Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Total Force)
10/7/2012
1 6 17 Establish metrics to monitor and track progress of enrollment, graduation, preference, selection, and performance relative to Recommendations 1-4.
O Deputy Chief of Naval
Operations (Total Force)
10/7/2012
20
Exhibit A:
Scope and Methodology
We conducted the audit during the period of 10 August 2010 through August 2011.
Impediments to Diversity
To determine a benchmark for measuring the nation’s diversity, we first reviewed the
Chief of Naval Operations 2011 Diversity Policy. This policy states that we
“must…build a Navy that always reflects our Country’s make up.” To determine the
country’s make-up, we reviewed the 2010 Census statistics and 2009 Department of
Education national college graduate statistics.
We obtained student data for 2006 through 2010 from the Chief of Naval Air Training;
the United States Naval Academy; Commander, Navy Recruiting Command; and the
Naval Service Training Command. We used this data to identify representation of
diverse students at various stages in the commissioning and flight training pipelines. We
identified reductions in diversity as impediments to increasing or maintaining diversity.
We also estimated how much diversity would increase if these impediments were
removed.
We conducted a review of data reliability and determined the data was sufficiently
reliable to support the conclusions in this report. We performed electronic testing to
compare the accuracy of common data elements contained in different systems to
determine whether discrepancies between the systems existed. This included testing
between United States Naval Academy and Chief of Naval Air Training, between Naval
Reserve Officer Training Corps and Chief of Naval Air Training, and between two Chief
of Naval Air Training data sets. We also manually tested a sample of discrepancies
identified during the electronic testing.
It should be noted that race and ethnicity was self-reported by the students, and they
could self-report as a different race or ethnicity when asked at different times.
The following assumptions were necessary for these estimates.
Assumptions Made for Commissioning Source Estimates
For the United States Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps’s
“Projections Class of 2013,” we displayed the actual number and representation percent
of those who enrolled in the Class of 2013. We then assumed that this class would
graduate, prefer, and be selected for Naval Pilot/Flight Officer careers at the same rate as
the Class of 2010, for which we have the most recent data available.
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
21
The Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps graduation, aviation preference, and aviation
selection data obtained for 2010 was missing the last 3 months of data for the calendar
year, and was, therefore, about 10 to 20 percent lower than the actual 2010 numbers. We
reduced the enrollment data (based on percent of enrollments occurring during first
9 months of 2009) so that we could compare 9 months of enrollments to 9 months of
graduates. This assumes that the diverse representation of the last 3 months of the year
was relatively consistent with the rest of the year. We did not find evidence that this will
materially affect the results.
Due to the way Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps tracks student data, we could not
compare enrollments to graduates by class year. Also, students do not all follow a 4-year
program, and they are able to enroll throughout the 4 years. Therefore, they are not
tracked as class groups. In Figures F, H, and J,22
Naval Reserve Officers Corps, we
compared Class of 2010 4-year scholarship enrollments (enrollment column) to Class of
2010 all graduates (graduation column). Any change in diversity representation between
these two points is affected by both attrition and the number of additional enrollments.
This assumes that the diversity of the 4-year scholarship enrollments is relatively
consistent with the diversity of the additional enrollments.
In order to evaluate Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps attrition and its effect on
diversity, we obtained Fiscal Year 2008 and 2009 universe and attrition figures for the
Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps. For each year, we looked at total students
enrolled in the program and the number enrolled at the end of each year after subtracting
those who resigned. We then compared the diversity representation of each group. None
of these showed a drop of one percent or greater in diversity representation.
Consequently, they are not included as impediments to maintaining or increasing
diversity.
Assumptions Made for Flight Training Estimates
The data for the Chief of Naval Air Training students only applied to individuals who
graduated from Naval Aviation Fundamentals, not the total enrollments in that program.
Therefore, we were unable to directly link commissioning source graduates with Chief of
Naval Air Training enrollments. We did not believe it was cost effective to use resources
to directly link commissioning source graduates with Chief of Naval Air Training
enrollments. Instead, we used multiple methods of analysis to estimate the attrition
between commissioning source graduates and Naval Aviation Fundamentals graduates.
This included using count-based and percentage-based methods. Our analysis assumed
that students who were reported by commissioning sources as selected for Naval
Pilot/Flight Officer, did actually enroll in the Chief of Naval Air Training. Comparing
the results of the different analyses showed that the estimated diversity representation of
22
These figures are located in the Finding of the report.
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
22
Naval Pilot/Flight Officer graduates and Naval Jet Pilot/Flight Officer graduates varied,
but did not change the overall conclusion.
To link commissioning source graduations and Chief of Naval Air Training graduates, we
used known counts and percentages of: 1) commissioning source graduates from 2010
and 2) Chief of Naval Air Training graduates from 2007. We reviewed trends in
commissioning source graduations from 2006 through 2010 and chose to use 2010 as the
best representation for our analysis because it was the most recent data.
We reviewed Chief of Naval Air Training graduate diversity counts and rates from 2007
through 2010 and determined that despite some spikes, they were relatively stable over
time. Also, the 2007 data was complete with only one student under instruction, no
students awaiting training, and the rest having completed the entire training pipeline. At
the time of our request, complete data for the Chief of Naval Air Training 2010 graduates
was not yet available.
Other Audit Steps Performed
We met with Commander, Naval Air Forces Diversity Office to discuss the ongoing
diversity program and outreach efforts.
We observed the student pipeline selection process at Chief of Naval Air Training, and
interviewed flight training personnel in Corpus Christi, TX. We interviewed pilots and
instructors at several training squadrons to obtain background on pilot training processes
and flight training curriculum. We reviewed flight training standards and the evaluation
procedures.
We met with the Naval Aviation Schools Command to discuss Naval Aviation
Fundamentals training and performance standards. We also met with officials
responsible for the Introductory Flight Screening program.
We reviewed the “Naval Aviation Student Training Attrition Report,” from Naval
Operational Medical Institute, which focused on survey responses for why students chose
an aviation career, why they attrite, demographics, and more. The report covered surveys
from October 2007 through September 2008, and included a section that allowed students
to report whether they believed they were victims of harassment or discrimination.
We met with personnel from the United States Naval Academy, Commander, Navy
Recruiting Command, and Naval Service Training Command regarding the three
commissioning sources. We discussed selection standards, student preferences, diversity
outreach efforts, and more. We contacted Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps units at
colleges and universities to discuss the specific policies and procedures at those units.
EXHIBIT A: SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
23
We reviewed prior audit reports from the Naval Audit Service, Department of Defense
Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office, and found there were no
reports published in the past 5 years covering Naval Pilot/Flight Officer diversity.
Therefore, no followup was required. We reviewed other resources, including:
“Minorities and Women in Naval Education Training 1997”;23
Taking Flight: Education
and Training for Aviation Careers;24
and “Difficulties in Accessing a Representative
Pilot Force: The Demographic Challenge and Views of Minority Pilot Focus Groups,” a
study performed for the U.S. Air Force in 1998.25
We did not conduct a review of internal controls. Because we limited the focus of our
audit primarily to an analysis of existing data, we determined that internal controls were
not significant to the context of our audit work.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the
audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
23
Uriell, Zannette A. and Rosenfeld, Paul. “Minorities and Women in Naval Education Training 1997” (NPRST-TN-10). Navy Personnel
Research, Studies, and Technology, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Millington, TN. December 2009. 24
Hansen, Janet S. and Oster, Clinton V. (editors). Taking Flight: Education and Training for Aviation Careers. National Academy Press.
1997. 25
Barucky, Jerry M. and Stone, Brice M. “Difficulties in Accessing a Representative Pilot Force: The Demographic Challenge and Views of
Minority Pilot Focus Groups.” Metrica, Inc. November 1999.
24
Exhibit B:
Chief of Naval Air Training Selection
Standards
We concluded that the Multi-Service Pilot Training System, used by Chief of Naval Air
Training to measure student performance, appeared objective. To account for potential
differences in scoring across training squadrons, student scores are normalized over the
last 60 students that graduated from the same squadron to create the Navy standard score.
According to Chief of Naval Air Training officials, the Multi-Service Pilot Training
System is a legally defensible and objective system. It contains objective course training
standards for each item26
within a flight event and the detailed permissible error
magnitude for each item. For each flight event, it lists a series of items to be graded,
along with the expected performance standards. The flight events are organized into
blocks and student Naval Pilots must reach the minimum performance standards by the
end of each training block.
We also reviewed the “Naval Aviation Student Training Attrition Report,” 27
a summary
of exit surveys administered to student Naval Pilot/Flight Officers after they resign from
or complete major phases in flight training. When asked whether diverse students were
discriminated against, 0.08 percent (4 of 4,996) of respondents indicated that this
occurred, and 0.39 percent (3 of 766) of diverse respondents indicated that this occurred.
When asked whether female students were discriminated against, 0.46 percent (23 of
4,996) of respondents indicated that this occurred, and 2.67 percent (12 of 450) of female
respondents indicated that this occurred.
26
Portion of the flight that will be graded (i.e. basic air work or takeoff). 27 The report covered October 2007 through September 2008.
25
Exhibit C:
Activities Visited and/or Contacted
Commander, Naval Air Forces Diversity Office*
Commander, Navy Recruiting Command
United States Naval Academy*
Navy Diversity Officer, Highly Qualified Expert*
Naval Service Training Command, Officer Development*
Naval Operational Medicine Institute/Naval Aerospace Medical Institute*
Officer Candidate School*
Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps
Hampton Rhodes Consortium
Savannah State University
University of Florida
Jacksonville University
Southern University and A & M College
Naval Aviation Schools Command*
Chief of Naval Air Training*
Training Air Wing Four – Training Squadron Twenty-Seven*
Training Air Wing Six – Training Squadron Four, Training Squadron Ten,
Training Squadron Eighty-Six*
*Activities Visited
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
26
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Appendix:
Management Response from Deputy
Chief of Naval Operations (Total Force)
FOIA (b)(6)
FOIA (b)(6)
28
We spoke to a representative in the office of the DCNO (N1) who confirmed that the response provided for Recommendation 6 contained a typographical error, and should have said, "DCNO(N1) concurs with Recommendation 6. Target Completion date is 07 October 2012."